The World's End (2013) Review

After creating the exceptionally popular films Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, Pegg and Wright’s third film, The World’s End, is often overshadowed. Often, this film is considered unworthy of the critical acclaim bestowed upon its predecessors. Some consider the protagonist, Gary King (Pegg), to be utterly irritating, and also argue that the humour is too dependent on repetition to satisfy an audience. However, despite these minor complaints, this film proves to be a fascinating exploration of nostalgia caused by a disillusionment of the present through Gary’s character. Despite the repetition of some jokes, this superbly directed film does have hilarious moments that showcase the best of British comedy. For some, this is an underrated masterpiece that deserves all, if not more, of the praise that has been showered on its predecessors.

"Don't need it!" 

Initially, the presentation of Gary King could be considered irritating, overblown and too chaotic for an audience to engage in his character arc. He is portrayed with a juvenile wildness and hedonism as he seeks a “fucking mental!” night-out with his friends. He tells Andy (Frost) that they are “going back on a Friday” because the only thing he values is the indulgence of pleasure and fun. Through the use of Primal Scream’s Loaded, we as an audience get the full impression that this character only wants “to have a good time”. This emphasis on Gary’s disorderly nature is repeated throughout the film; thus, some may argue that this presentation is extremely exaggerated, making Gary’s character annoying and tiresome. However, on a much deeper reading, it is clear Gary proves to be an endearing character we can feel great sympathy for. Whilst he could be interpreted as a hedonistic character, his most defining characteristic is his longing for the past. In a similar manner to the eponymous protagonist of Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, Gary is a character utterly trapped and imprisoned in the glorious past, refusing to “join society”. His clothing, his tape recordings and his car all suggest that he is a man stuck in 1990. Even the movie soundtrack of 90s music emphasises this character’s overpowering nostalgia. Wright and Pegg create a lot of sympathy for Gary’s character when we realise his happy memories of the past are “all I’ve got!” He is portrayed as utterly disillusioned with the present day as he realises “life would never feel this good again”; the “promise” of his youth has disappointed him greatly. In a time when the protest vote has shaken British politics to its core, and when reality TV is so appealing to the masses, is Gary not a character we can all sympathise with? We all suffer disillusionment with this bleak period in time, thus making Gary such an endearing and relatable character.

"I'm free to do what I want any old time"

Nevertheless, some audiences may still label The World’s End a poor-quality film because of the humour, arguing that a few of the jokes fall flat. The recurring gag of having every member of the cast exclaim “what the fuck?” was not particularly funny when Oliver (Freeman) first said it. Despite the varying tones in which this phrase is uttered, it struggles to evoke laughter from the audience throughout the film. Furthermore, many elements of humour in this movie feel tired and cliche. Wright and Pegg repeat the ‘falling off the fence’ gag that they used in the other two movies, and it feels exhausted in this film. The cliched drinking jokes (such as “Dr Ink” and “we will in truth be blind- drunk!”) have been so overused in the past that they cease to be funny in the film. Thus, some may argue that The World’s End lacks the charming humour which made the first two films as popular as they are. However, the dynamic between Frost and Pegg proves to be a plentiful source of comedy; in fact, this is the most comic pair of characters the two actors have ever played. Much of the humour of the film lies in the presentation of Andy and Gary’s relationship as being akin to that of a parent and child. Andy consistently holds Gary to account for his actions as Andy tries to control his former friend. When running towards the eponymous ‘World’s End’ pub, Andy calls for Gary to “get back you stupid bastard!”, and is utterly disgusted to discover that Gary lied about his mother’s death: “your Mum just rang, and not from the afterlife: from fucking Bournemouth!” Gary, too, is perturbed by Andy’s maturity; he is shocked to see a “man of your legendary prowess drinking fucking rain” rather than the alcohol consumed in their youth. This dynamic of two friends almost living in two different time zones leads to some of the best comedy in both of their careers. As these two friends battle to change the other, we as an audience are treated to hilarious pieces of dialogue between the two.

"I fucking hate this town!"

The greatest aspect of this masterpiece is certainly Wright’s outstanding direction. His skills are subtle and masterful as he uses a multitude of different types of shot to create meaning, humour and tension. For example, he chooses to open the film with a montage of clips from the main character’s past, voiced over by the Gary King of the future. Whilst this montage is significant for foreshadowing the future events of the plot, creating interest for the audience over what is to come, it has a much greater significance in developing Gary’s character. By using clips of the younger version of Gary as the older version narrates immediately connotes that his character has not moved on from “the best night of my life”. Wright’s superb directorial command is also used to create tension as the action unfolds. Whether he is using an aerial shot to capture the stylised violence of the fight with the twins, or a sequence shot to emphasise the chaotic carnage of Andy’s fury in the bar brawl- “I fucking hate this town!”- Wright’s direction is always excellent. You will struggle to resist the appealing visuals and the directorial charm of what Wright has crafted for the screen. It certainly attractive to the eye. The choreography of the fight scenes is much tighter in this film than in any of his other works, and his skill is magnificently used to develop the character of his protagonist. The direction of the film is masterfully crafted, and really develops the entertaining cinematic experience.

Whilst some of the humour feels dry, cliched and repetitive, this film still proves to be utterly hilarious through the comic chemistry between Pegg and Frost in their performances. The comedy is utterly superb- Wright and Pegg are working at their best. Moreover, the writer-director pairing find much greater success in their carefully constructed characterisation of Gary King. Despite being portrayed as irritating and annoying in the opening scenes of the film, they add a great deal of depth to his character, thus making him a lot more relatable and endearing by the end of the film. However, the greatest achievement of The World’s End is certainly in its wonderful visual parade of different shots. It makes the stylised violence and carnage of the fight scenes visually glorious, and even subtly adds to the characterisation of the protagonist. This impressively directed film achieves a lot of humour and complex characterisation in its short running time. It is a worthy masterpiece of British cinema to follow up Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, as well as serving as the perfect conclusion to the self-titled Cornetto trilogy.

In House of Cards, are the female characters only presented as victims of Frank Underwood’s pursuit of power?

Throughout Frank Underwood’s rise in power, many of the female characters are presented as suffering and as manipulated victims. His ruthless pragmatism and almost inhuman indifference allows him to suppress anyone who stands in his way. Characters such as Heather Dunbar, Rachel Posner and Claire Underwood- to varying extents- suffer attacks on their dignity, power and livelihood. However, there are occurrences throughout the series where these female characters defy what Frank expects of them, thus becoming strong, independent and stoic characters as a result. 

Note, this analysis only considers Seasons 1-3. I have not yet watched the fourth season in its entirety.

Some may argue that Heather Dunbar is presented as a victim of Frank’s ruthlessness as he attempts to sustain his power and the presidency. During her first debate, she is forced to endure sly and cunning personal attacks, from both Frank and Jackie Sharp, as they use her gender as a weapon. They try to portray her as a “bad mother” who abandons her children, and even as a “sexist” who only looks after herself, rather than the whole of America’s female population. This assault on her character increases in intensity when they try to use her actions in the past, such as sending her children to public school or her lack of a “record to defend”, in order to diminish her credibility and humiliate her. To some extent, it does appear that this attack on her character and her past victimises her, for she loses the first caucus in Iowa, thus suggesting that her public image has decreased in popularity. However, to a greater extent, it appears that Dunbar is actually Frank’s strongest obstacle in his pursuit of the presidency, and perhaps one of the most powerful female character in this television series. Throughout the third season, Frank “trails” behind her in the polls. Rather than someone victimised by Frank’s ruthlessness, Dunbar is portrayed as a formidable opponent that Frank struggles to overcome. Even when he humiliates her during the debate, labelling her a “bad mother”, she swiftly responds in an calm and human way “do I want the best for my kids? Yes I do!” Frank’s attempts to humiliate her are quickly halted by her strong and defiant demeanour as she refuses to fall to his depraved level of politics. Thus, it appears that not all female characters are presented as victims of Frank’s pursuit of power. Dunbar, a “symbol” for the power that women can have in politics, proves to be one of the strongest and most controlled characters in the series, and certainly a very worthy candidate for president that Frank will struggle to defeat in the later seasons.

Rachel Posner is portrayed as a greater of a victim of Frank’s ruthless pursuit of power. During the first season, she is essentially a pawn which Frank uses to progress through his plan to the vice-presidency. Her value never increases above this- Frank does not even meet her due to her lack of significance to him. Yet he still does what he pleases with her, using Doug to take complete control of her life. She is paid to keep silent about her sexual encounter with Peter Russo, and then to seduce him later in the season. Each time Frank needs her silenced with regards to what she knows, she is forced to “move again”, despite her pleas that she has “finally made a life for myself”. Furthermore, during her last appearance in the series structurally, she is presented as utterly humiliated and powerless. She is kidnapped by Doug- bound and gagged by a rope which appears to symbolise the oppressing constraints of Frank’s power. She is even forced to urinate all over herself “back there” in the van, which is incredibly degrading and suggests she is considered as below human by both Doug and Frank. She is repeatedly told to never “overestimate yourself”, as it steadily becomes clear for the audience that she is a victim of Frank’s abusive manipulation of her. Whilst some may argue that many of her actions suggest she is not victimised by Frank, such as the way she overcomes and escapes Doug, or the way she creates a new identity for herself as Cassie Lockhart off-screen, it is clear that all of this is meaningless. Many consider her storyline with Doug to be extra-baggage and unimportant, which is entirely the point. Other than being a minor hindrance to Doug, she is never allowed to accomplish anything substantial. As the series progresses beyond season four and beyond, her horrific, unfortunate and untimely death will steadily be forgotten by the other characters. Other than as a puppet for Frank to use in his pursuit of power, she serves no purpose. She dies as an unfortunate victim of his manipulation.

Nevertheless, women are not presented only as victims in Frank Underwood’s pursuit of power, for Claire Underwood could be interpreted as one of the most influential and powerful characters in the entire series. Her impact on other character’s decisions is incredibly substantial. For many voters in this fictionalised version of America, she is the only reason that people vote for Frank in the first place- “people like Claire”, and are persuaded to vote by what she says. During the third season, Claire even acknowledges this fact “I should have never made you president”. The use of the word “made” offers a lot of insight into the amount of power she has, for it suggests that Frank would have achieved nothing without the authority she has in this corrupt world of politics. Furthermore, her role as CEO of Clean Water Initiative would have proven very effective in getting the environmental bill to pass through Congress, if she actually decided to used her high-ranking position. She chooses not to though, and this causes a lot of delay in Frank’s pursuit of the presidency. Thus, it appears that Claire Underwood is a character who makes a substantial impact, someone who is certainly not victimised by Frank’s pursuit of power. However, a much deeper reading suggests that her authority within the show is superficial- an illusion that never becomes a reality. Ironically, as Claire becomes First Lady of the United States, she finally comes to realise that every bit of control she had over her life has been manipulated by Frank. Her business, her influence on voters and even her role as First Lady have all been for his benefit- not hers. President Petrov even observes that Frank simply “pimps” Claire out; every action she takes in the show contributes to Frank’s plans, rather than for her own benefit. Dunbar manages to get the role of solicitor general and builds a successful campaign for president alone, but Claire has nothing unless Frank gets it also. He oppressively tells her that “without me you are nothing”, suggesting how any power she had has been completely usurped and absorbed by Frank. Now she is victimised by him, feeling utterly “weak and small”. Whilst it could be argued that she is portrayed as one of the most commanding and authoritative characters in the series, her influence in events is presented as much more superficial than it is genuine. In fact, many argue that she is presented as being the most victimised by Frank’s pursuit of power, and his lack of respect for her as a person.

The female characters in this series could considered strong, defiant and powerful in the face of Frank’s ruthless pragmatism. Many of the women in this series fight for what they want and what they believe in, such as their own life, or to progress further up the political ladder. However, it soon becomes clear that this battle against Frank is often fruitless. Women are unfortunately presented as victimised by, and suffering from, Frank’s merciless desire to become the president. Often their own plans and goals are ravaged, exploited and ruined because Frank’s ambitions always come first throughout the entire show. Whilst there are occurrences where it appears that women are triumphant in their own aspirations despite Frank’s plans, it soon becomes clear that it is always the protagonist who succeeds in what they set out to do, and that women are often left victimised as a result.